Do you have any brains at all? Or did that get sucked out at your last liposuction session?* Do you have the smallest desire to educate yourself on anything resembling a scientific subject? How can you get through life without the smallest ability to understand a topic at the most basic level. The absurdity that can escape your lips when you quack continues to amaze me.

Somehow you have reasoned that the way to curb global greenhouse emmissions is to drill more natural gas.

Palin said that relatively clean-burning natural gas could supplant dirtier fuels and slow the discharge of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Wha, wha, what?!? Have you bothered to check what the term "clean", as popularized during the Bush era actually means? Do you understand that The "Clean Air Act" only deals with particulate, sulphur compounds and NOx emmisions and has nothing to do with carbon reduction. Do you even realize that when you burn a pound of natural gas, you get about 2.75 pounds of carbon dioxide?

Do you understand that when you drill for natural gas you waste millions of gallons of water per well and add huge amounts of chemicals to the groundwater including large amounts of carcinogens? Worse yet, as it stands now, the drilling companies consider the additives to be proprietary and do not have to disclose what they are sending into the ground.

Do you understand that you are trying to propose to shift over trillions of dollars worth of energy generating equipment (from cars to electric power plants) to a new process? If we are going to spend that kind of money, why would we do if for an exhaustible energy supply that hurts our atmosphere?

OK, now that I calmed down. Here is what she is getting at:

Fossil Fuel Emission Levels - Pounds per Billion Btu of Energy Input
Pollutant	Natural Gas	Oil	Coal
Carbon Dioxide	117,000	164,000	208,000
Carbon Monoxide	40	33	208
Nitrogen Oxides	92	448	457
Sulfur Dioxide	1	1,122	2,591
Particulates	7	84	2,744
Mercury	0.000	0.007	0.016

Yes, natural gas burns cleaner and produces less CO2 per BTU than other fuels. But your proposal is the same as saying that in order to get off heroin, we should start smoking crack, because you use less needles. You are also ignoring the energy density of the other fuesl which makes them easier and cheaper to transport. Although NG pipelines help, that totally depends on the infrastructure of the country and does nothing for anyone not living near a city.

























Yes, cars can be modified to use NG, but then they have lower ranges, isn't that what you car nutz dislike about battery operated vehicles? Yes, we could get power from NG. But we can also get power from non-polluting nuclear**, we can get fuels from high energy density oil producing algae. We can decentralize our power needs with CHP, solar, wind, geothermal, biogas, energy efficiency, conservation, and so many other methods that the crack you are offering is only a short term, non-essential and damaging high. All you are proposing is to drill more so we use more.

No thanks. Go back to your dark hole.



*unsubstantiated accusation on my part
** yeah, I know about nuclear waste. But nuke technology is far more advanced now, we can produce far far less waste, and we can store it in solid glass as well as with other methods. Nuclear waste is not the issue with nuclear. The issue with nuclear is that it simply shifts us from one exhaustible resource to another. But at least we get most of our foreign nuclear material from countries that like us.